Date of Decision: May 28, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Graduate Student / Postdoctoral Research Associate
Field: Generation and Storage of Electricity
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in her field, meeting the evidentiary criterion for participation as a judge .
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles, fulfilling the criterion for this evidence requirement .
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The submitted articles were mainly derived from a single press release and did not focus specifically on the petitioner’s individual contributions. The articles were from content aggregator sites and did not establish sustained acclaim or focus on her work in the required detail .
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Although the petitioner’s work is promising and in an important field, the evidence did not demonstrate that her contributions were of major significance at the time of filing. The significance of the contributions was not established through widespread use or recognition .
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No major, internationally recognized awards were established, and therefore, this criterion was not met.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The 19 articles submitted were mostly press releases or derived from one main source. The articles did not distinguish the petitioner’s specific contributions, nor did they qualify as professional or major media .
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s work in generating and storing electricity was recognized as promising, but the contributions were at an early stage and had not yet demonstrated major significance through widespread recognition or use .
Participation as a Judge:
Evidence showed that the petitioner participated as a judge of others’ work in her field, which was accepted as fulfilling one of the required criteria .
Membership in Associations:
No specific membership in associations was discussed in the document.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles, which was one of the accepted criteria .
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not specifically mentioned or met according to the document.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not provided or discussed in the document.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
19 Online Articles: Mostly derived from a single press release and did not meet the criterion for published material about the petitioner.
Letters of Recommendation: Provided support but were not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner’s standing at the very top of her field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Denied
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet at least three of the required criteria. The articles did not focus specifically on the petitioner, and the contributions, although promising, had not yet achieved significant recognition or implementation.
Next Steps: The petitioner may continue to strengthen her portfolio of evidence, demonstrating more substantial individual recognition and contributions of major significance, before reapplying.
This case underscores the stringent requirements for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification, highlighting the necessity for clear and compelling evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and recognition of significant individual contributions in the field.
